Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 34 Filed 01/04/21 Page 1 of 7
`
`
`
`Stephen A. Swedlow (admitted pro hac vice)
` stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606-1881
`(312) 705-7400
`
`Kevin Y. Teruya (Bar No. 235916)
` kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
`Adam B. Wolfson (Bar No. 262125)
` adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
`Brantley I. Pepperman (Bar No. 322057)
` brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
`(213) 443-3000
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`Warren Postman (Bar No. 330869)
` wdp@kellerlenkner.com
`Jason Ethridge (admitted pro hac vice)
` jason.ethridge@kellerlenkner.com
`KELLER LENKNER LLC
`1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 918-1123
`
`Ashley Keller (admitted pro hac vice)
` ack@kellerlenkner.com
`Benjamin Whiting (admitted pro hac
`vice)
` ben.whiting@kellerlenkner.com
`KELLER LENKNER LLC
`150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 741-5220
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`MAXIMILIAN KLEIN and SARAH
`GRABERT, individually and on behalf of all
`others similarly situated,
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`FACEBOOK, INC., a Delaware corporation
`headquartered in California,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
` Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
`ADMINISTRATIVE RELIEF TO
`CONSIDER WHETHER CONSUMER
`CASES SHOULD BE RELATED
`PURSUANT TO CIVIL LOCAL RULE 3-
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RELATE CONSUMER CASES
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 34 Filed 01/04/21 Page 2 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`Currently, at least seven putative antitrust class actions are pending against defendant
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`3
`
`Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) before six different judges in the Northern District of California.
`
`4
`
`These seven cases should be assigned into one of two unrelated groups.
`
`5
`
`The first consists of two cases: Reveal Chat Holdco LLC et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No.
`
`6
`
`5:20-cv-00363-BLF (Freeman, J.) and the later-filed Affilious, Inc. et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case
`
`7
`
`No. 4:20-cv-09217-KAW (Westmore, J.) (collectively, the “Reveal Chat group”). Reveal Chat
`
`8
`
`and Affilious raise allegations about Facebook’s conduct towards app developers and advertisers
`
`9
`
`in the “Social Data” and “Social Advertising” relevant markets, focus on Facebook’s refusal to
`
`10
`
`provide them with access to data from its “Platform”, and were filed by the same plaintiffs’
`
`11
`
`counsel. Facebook, the Reveal Chat plaintiffs, and the Affilious plaintiffs stipulated to relate
`
`12
`
`Affilious to Reveal Chat before Judge Freeman on December 30, 2020. See Reveal Chat, Dkt. 98.
`
`13
`
`The second consists of four cases: Klein et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-
`
`14
`
`LHK (this case) and the later-filed Kupcho v. Facebook, Inc., No. 4:20-cv-08815-JSW (White, J.);
`
`15
`
`Dames et al. v. Facebook, Inc., No. 3:20-cv-08817-HSG (Gilliam, J.); and Steinberg v. Facebook,
`
`16
`
`Inc. 3:20-cv-09130-VC (Chhabria, J.) (collectively, the “Klein group”). Unlike Reveal Chat and
`
`17
`
`Affilious, Klein and the later-filed Kupcho, Dames, and Steinberg raise allegations about
`
`18
`
`Facebook’s anticompetitive deception of consumers in the “Social Network” and/or “Social
`
`19
`
`Media”1 relevant markets. Because the Klein group is unrelated to the Reveal Chat group, Local
`
`20
`
`Rule 3-12 does not require the same District Judge to preside over all actions simply because they
`
`21
`
`are antitrust cases against Facebook. In fact, antitrust class actions involving different plaintiff
`
`22
`
`classes and different relevant markets are frequently assigned to different judges in the Northern
`
`23
`
`District of California despite involving the same defendant or “platform.” Compare In re Google
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 Klein and the later-filed Kupcho allege anticompetitive behavior in the Social Network
`
`and Social Media Markets. Dames and Steinberg both allege anticompetitive behavior in the
`
`“Personal Social Networking Market,” which, but for the name, is substantially similar to the
`
`Social Network Market first alleged in the earlier-filed Klein.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-1-
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RELATE CONSUMER CASES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 34 Filed 01/04/21 Page 3 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`Digital Advertising Antitrust Litig., Case No. 5:20-cv-03556-BLF (Freeman, J.) (putative class of
`
`2
`
`users of Google’s search advertising services in “Online Display Advertising Services Market”);
`
`3
`
`with In re Google Play Consumer Antitrust Litig., Case No. 3:20-cv-05761-JD (Donato, J.)
`
`4
`
`(putative class of consumers in “App Distribution Market” that purchased mobile apps using
`
`5
`
`Google Play app store).
`
`6
`
`A seventh case—Sherman et al. v. Facebook, Inc., Case No. 3:20-cv-08721-JSW (White,
`
`7
`
`J.)—is an outlier because it, unlike the others, could arguably be assigned to either group.
`
`8
`
`Sherman asserts claims on behalf of consumers based on the same anticompetitive deception of
`
`9
`
`consumers first alleged in Klein.2 See, e.g., Sherman, Dkt. 1, at ¶¶ 12–17, 79–89. But unlike the
`
`10
`
`cases in the Klein group, and like the cases in the Reveal Chat group, Sherman also asserts claims
`
`11
`
`on behalf of non-consumers based on Facebook’s conduct aimed at those non-consumers. Id. at ¶¶
`
`12
`
`18–21, 74–77. And, unlike the cases in the Klein group—which involve only putative classes of
`
`13
`
`consumers—the Sherman plaintiffs seek to represent both an “Antitrust Facebook User Class” and
`
`14
`
`an “Antitrust Facebook Advertiser Class.” Id. at ¶ 181.
`
`15
`
`Several piece-meal motions to relate these seven cases are pending before different judges
`
`16
`
`in the Northern District of California. Pending before Judge Freeman in Reveal Chat are: (1)
`
`17
`
`Facebook’s motion to relate Klein to Reveal Chat (which the Klein Plaintiffs oppose); (2)
`
`18
`
`Facebook’s motion to relate the later-filed Sherman, Kupcho, and Dames to Reveal Chat3; (3) the
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 Facebook has previously conceded that the anticompetitive deception of consumers
`
`theory first alleged in Klein and then alleged in the later-filed cases “is absent from the Reveal
`
`Chat complaint.” Reveal Chat, Dkt. 87, at 3; see also Reveal Chat, Dkt. 85, at 4.
`
`3 The Dames and Sherman plaintiffs each opposed Facebook’s motion to relate Dames and
`
`Sherman to Reveal Chat. Reveal Chat, Dkts. 93, 94. The Kupcho plaintiff filed a response
`
`indicating that she “does not oppose the relation or any necessary coordination among the cases”
`
`but “opposes any consolidation of the Facebook User Cases . . . with the Reveal Chat case, based
`
`on the factual and legal differences between the cases.” Reveal Chat, Dkt. 92, at 1.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-2-
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RELATE CONSUMER CASES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 34 Filed 01/04/21 Page 4 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`Affilious plaintiffs’ unopposed motion to relate Affilious to Reveal Chat; and (4) Facebook’s
`
`2
`
`motion to relate Steinberg to Reveal Chat (which the Steinberg plaintiff opposes). Reveal Chat,
`
`3
`
`Dkts. 85, 87, 98, 99. Already pending before this Court is the Sherman plaintiffs’ motion to relate
`
`4
`
`Sherman to Klein rather than to Reveal Chat. Klein, Dkt. 19.
`
`5
`
`The Klein Plaintiffs’ present motion defers to the Court and takes no position on which
`
`6
`
`judge should decide which motion first. Nor does the motion seek to relate Sherman to Klein
`
`7
`
`(which is the subject of the Sherman plaintiffs’ already pending motion, which the Klein Plaintiffs
`
`8
`
`do not oppose).4 Instead, the motion recognizes that these seven cases are the subject of multiple
`
`9
`
`piece-meal motions to relate that are pending before multiple courts, including this one.
`
`10
`
`Accordingly, to comply with Local Rule 3-12(b) and to assist the Court (and the Northern District
`
`11
`
`of California) with the orderly management of the cases in the Klein group, Plaintiffs in this
`
`12
`
`case—the “lowest-numbered” case challenging Facebook’s anticompetitive deception of
`
`13
`
`consumers—move to relate the later-filed Kupcho, Dames, and Steinberg to the earlier-filed
`
`14
`
`Klein.5
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4 The Klein plaintiffs filed a response to the Sherman plaintiffs’ motion maintaining that
`
`“[w]ith respect to the proper assignment of Klein, . . . Klein is not related to Reveal Chat,” but that
`
`with respect to the assignment of Sherman, the Klein Plaintiffs “do not oppose the Sherman
`
`plaintiffs’ motion to relate their later-filed Sherman case to Klein rather than to Reveal Chat.”
`
`Klein, Dkt. 24 at 1.
`
`5 The Steinberg and Dames plaintiffs agreed to stipulate that their respective cases are
`
`related to Klein. See Dkt. 34-2, ¶¶ 6, 9. The Kupcho plaintiff indicated that she takes no position
`
`as to the Klein Plaintiffs’ motion to relate while Facebook’s motions to relate are pending before
`
`Judge Freeman in Reveal Chat. Id., ¶ 8. Facebook opposes the Klein Plaintiffs’ motion. Id., ¶ 7.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-3-
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RELATE CONSUMER CASES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 34 Filed 01/04/21 Page 5 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`First, Klein and the later-filed Kupcho, Dames, and Steinberg concern substantially similar
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`3
`
`parties, transactions, and events. See N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-12(a)(1). The below chart highlights some
`
`4
`
`of these similarities.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Klein
`
`Kupcho
`
`Dames
`
`Steinberg
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Relevant
`Market(s)
`
`Putative
`Classes(s)
`
`Two individual
`Facebook users:
`Maximilian Klein
`and Sarah
`Grabert.
`
`Exh. 1, ¶¶ 18–25.
`The Social
`Network Market
`and the Social
`Media Market in
`the United States.
`
`Exh. 1, ¶¶ 52, 74.
`The Antitrust
`Consumer Class
`and the Unjust
`Enrichment
`Consumer Class.6
`
`Exh. 1, ¶ 216.
`
`One individual
`Facebook user:
`Rachel Banks
`Kupcho.
`
`
`Exh. 2, ¶¶ 20–22.
`The Social
`Network Market
`and the Social
`Media Market in
`the United States.
`
`Exh. 2, ¶¶ 53, 75.
`The Antitrust
`Consumer Class
`and the Unjust
`Enrichment
`Consumer Class.
`
`Exh. 2, ¶ 218.
`
`Two individual
`Facebook users:
`Deborah Dames
`and Timothy
`Mathews.
`
`Exh. 4, ¶¶ 11–14.
`The Personal
`Social
`Networking
`Market in the
`United States.
`
`Exh. 4, ¶¶ 33, 38.
`The Antitrust
`Class and the
`Unjust
`Enrichment
`Class.
`
`Exh. 4, ¶ 114.
`
`One individual
`Facebook user:
`Charles
`Steinberg.
`
`
`Exh. 6, ¶ 16.
`The Personal
`Social
`Networking
`Market in the
`United States.
`
`Exh. 6, ¶¶ 20–21.
`The Antitrust
`Class and the
`Unjust
`Enrichment
`Class.
`
`Exh. 6, ¶ 60.
`
`
`6 The Klein Plaintiffs’ proposed classes include: “All persons or entities in the United
`
`States who maintained a Facebook profile from 2007 up to the date of the filing of this action.”
`
`Each of the later-filed Kupcho, Dames, and Steinberg include class definitions that are identical to
`
`those in Klein. See Exh. 2, ¶ 218; Exh. 4, ¶ 114; Exh. 6, ¶ 60.
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-4-
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RELATE CONSUMER CASES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 34 Filed 01/04/21 Page 6 of 7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`
`
`Klein
`
`Kupcho
`
`Dames
`
`Steinberg
`
`Consumer
`Deception as
`Anti-
`Competitive
`Conduct7
`
`Yes.
`
`Exh. 1, ¶¶ 91–
`141.
`
`Yes.
`
`Exh. 2, ¶¶ 92–
`142.
`
`Yes.
`
`Exh. 4, ¶¶ 83–93.
`
`Yes.
`
`Exh. 6, ¶¶ 44–47.
`
`Second, assignment of Klein, Kupcho, Dames, and Steinberg to a single United States
`
`District Judge would best conserve judicial resources, promote economy and efficiency, and
`
`7
`
`eliminate the potential for conflicting results.8 See N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-12(a)(2). Given the common
`
`8
`
`9
`
`plaintiff classes, allegations regarding Facebook’s anticompetitive deception of consumers,
`
`relevant markets, and requested relief, separate adjudication of Klein and the later-filed Kupcho,
`
`10
`
`Dames, and Steinberg would create an unduly burdensome duplication of labor and expense.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`Because Klein, Kupcho, Dames, and Steinberg are at preliminary stages (Facebook has not filed a
`
`responsive pleading or motion in any of these cases), relation of these cases would not prejudice
`
`13
`
`any of the parties.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Kupcho, Dames, and Steinberg should be related to the earlier-
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`16
`
`filed Klein.
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7 Contrary to Facebook’s dismissive assertion, Klein and the later-filed consumer cases do
`
`not focus on “monopoly broth” (a mix of various ingredients which are separately not actionable)
`
`as anticompetitive conduct.
`
`8 While there is a risk of conflicting results should these cases be adjudicated separately
`
`from each other, there is no risk of conflicting results on the merits should they be adjudicated
`
`separately from the wholly-different cases in the Reveal Chat group. See Reveal Chat, Dkt. 86, at
`
`4–5; Dkt. 91, at 1–2. To the extent necessary, discovery in cases in both groups can be assigned to
`
`a single Magistrate Judge, further eliminating any need for the cases in both groups to be assigned
`
`to a single District Judge. See Univ. of California v. Eli Lilly & Co., No. 90-cv-0373-DLJ-JSB,
`
`1991 WL 332056, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 4, 1991).
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-5-
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RELATE CONSUMER CASES
`
`

`

`Case 5:20-cv-08570-LHK Document 34 Filed 01/04/21 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`Dated: January 4, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
` Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Stephen A. Swedlow (admitted pro hac vice)
` stephenswedlow@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`191 N. Wacker Drive, Suite 2700
`Chicago, IL 60606-1881
`(312) 705-7400
`
`Kevin Y. Teruya (Bar No. 235916)
` kevinteruya@quinnemanuel.com
`Adam B. Wolfson (Bar No. 262125)
` adamwolfson@quinnemanuel.com
`Brantley I. Pepperman (Bar No. 322057)
` brantleypepperman@quinnemanuel.com
`QUINN EMANUEL URQUHART & SULLIVAN, LLP
`865 South Figueroa Street, 10th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-2543
`(213) 443-3000
`
`
`
`/s/ Adam B. Wolfson
`
`
`Warren Postman (Bar No. 330869)
` wdp@kellerlenkner.com
`Jason Ethridge (admitted pro hac vice)
` jason.ethridge@kellerlenkner.com
`KELLER LENKNER LLC
`1300 I Street, N.W., Suite 400E
`Washington, DC 20005
`(202) 918-1123
`
`Ashley Keller (admitted pro hac vice)
` ack@kellerlenkner.com
`Ben Whiting (admitted pro hac vice)
` ben.whiting@kellerlenkner.com
`KELLER LENKNER LLC
`150 N. Riverside Plaza, Suite 4270
`Chicago, IL 60606
`(312) 741-5220
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`ATTESTATION OF ADAM B. WOLFSON
`
`This document is being filed through the Electronic Case Filing (ECF) system by attorney
`
`Adam B. Wolfson. By his signature, Mr. Wolfson attests that he has obtained concurrence in the
`
`filing of this document from each of the attorneys identified on the caption page and in the above
`
`signature block.
`
`Dated: January 4, 2021
`
`
`
`By /s/ Adam B. Wolfson
`
` Adam B. Wolfson
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on this 4th day of January 2021, I electronically transmitted the
`
`foregoing document to the Clerk’s Office using the CM/ECF System. In addition, I hereby certify
`
`that I have served the foregoing document on counsel by electronic mail.
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`By /s/ Adam B. Wolfson
`
` Adam B. Wolfson
`
`
`
`Case No. 5:20-cv-08570-LHK
`-6-
`PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO RELATE CONSUMER CASES
`
`